dismissedMAR122025_01B52032025-03-12 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Beneficiary, a lead EV applications engineer, proposed to continue developing and testing electrified axles for electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, leading engineering work in support of U.S. Department of Energy grants to electrify medium- and heavy-duty trucks for two customers.
Field: electrical/mechanical engineering (electric vehicle propulsion systems) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the issue here is not the broader implications of the Petitioner's company, but rather the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor”
“The evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary as a single employee would affect the industry more broadly.”
“The Petitioner has also not shown how the Beneficiary's position as a lead EV applications engineer has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the letters in the record focus on the Petitioner's experience, expertise, and knowledge in the field”
“simply stating that an individual's duties are aligned with national initiatives or priorities, without corroborating evidence, is not sufficient”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not sufficiently detail how the Beneficiary's work would have a broader impact within the electric vehicle industry”
AAO decision text - other · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The Director had already found the Beneficiary eligible for the underlying EB-2 advanced-degree classification, so the appeal turned solely on the national interest waiver's first prong; AAO expressly reserved prongs two and three under Bagamasbad.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- Flores v. Garland
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod